The Savage Republican

Disagreement among friends

Disagreement among friends is expected. It can be good and reaffirming or it can be bad and destructive depending on how it is handled. My dear friends Savage Republican, Amendment X and I have disagreed on the Miers nomination and how it was handled. However, we handled our disagreement in a constructive manner - each respecting the others view points, even if we don't agree with it. As such, even though we disagree on this single issue (there are probably more waiting in the wings guys) we agree on the main principles that brought us together in the first place and thus - life is good.

How will things turn out for the Republican Party post Harriet Miers? My friend Savage Republican is correct - the Dems WILL oppose any nominee that President Bush puts forward, just for pure, unadulterated spite! I may not be feeling as gloomy as I was when I posted this last night, but I am still troubled. I believe that we handed the Dems a victory by not allowing a candidate, flawed though she may have been, to come before committee. I agree with Savage Republican's assertion that we Republicans should demand excellence from our candidates, but I am a bit of a pragmitist in that I do not feel that it is in our best interests to hand the enemy ammunition with which to fight us and I firmly believe that we did just that, in denying Harriet Miers at least a chance to appear before committee before dismissing her candidacy. We put a lot of stress on the demand that "every judicial candidate DESERVES an up or down vote" during the last election and yet, when faced with a candidate we didn't like, we did the very same thing that we hammered the opposition on.

I do honestly hope that I am wrong here. I would dearly LOVE to be wrong here, but everything that I am hearing out of the echo chamber on the left says I am right. PLEASE GOD, help the President pick another John Roberts type nominee. Someone with a track record but someone knowledgeable enough in the law to put all litmus test questions off with the same grace and aplomb that Chief Justince Roberts did. I pray there is someone out there that can pull this off. For the sake of the country.

They will oppose anyone

Once again we find disagreement here.
The reason I was upset with Meirs was besides the lack of qualifications - politically it was stupid.
No matter who the President nominates the dems will oppose.
So to submit someone like Meirs who was a stealth candidate with no record, still dems came out and said they did not like her.

They are Democrats - So to think that by picking someone who will please them, they will get confirmed is politically dumb.

So the President should nominate the best candidate - Let the Dems go on record for a filibuster and then the Senate can do what they should have done back before the gang of Seven derailed the constitution - That is force a vote on the Rules and confirm over the Filibuster.

And if he picks a constitutionally Sound Judge, he will have the backing of all the conservatives that supported him in the last election.

Historical Note:
Wanted to point out how wise our founding fathers were.
One of the complaints about the current nominee is that she was chosen not as much for her judicial skills but for her connections to the President.
If she had continued foward, she should and been allowed an up or down vote, and nothing I have heard or seen would have disqualified her from service (The complaint is not the she was not qualified, just that there were lots of others much more qualified).
But back to the founding fathers, they also knew that the confirmation makes it a much more open process and as was written in Federalist Paper #76 - A President would be reluctant to put forth a candidate based on personal relationship for fear of public admonishment.
This is exactly what happened.
The President put forth a candidate who did not have the sort of legal reputation and dedication to the constitution that was desired by those who elected the President. We let him know and he did what the founding fathers envisioned.
If only the Senate were as dedicated to the constituion as both Harriet Miers and the President are.

As an final thought - the fact that she removed her nomination, shows that Harriet Miers does have respect to the consitution -
If only she had said more and done more actions like this in her past she might have been a good candidate.

Well I hope ya'll are happy!

Yeah, Harriet Miers was not the best pick. I think Savage Republican called her a B+ pick and I would probably concur. However, because not enough was known about her, I was willing to wait for the hearings....well now we will not get that chance. Because Ms. Miers removed her name from contention for the Supreme Court, we have handed the Dems a victory. The talking points (from Terry MacAuliff to Harry Reid to Joe Trippe to Pat Leahy) are already saying that the "radical right has scuttled this candidate!" They are already setting the stage that the next candidate had better be a "moderate" (aka pro-abortion) or they will be considered to be too extreme and thus a candidate for filibuster! Because of this little tantrum, WE are going to be seen as extreme and out of the mainstream!!!!!

I know that I was in the minority opinion on the Miers nomination, but I feel safe in predicting this. WHOEVER the President puts forth, regardless of their stellar qualifications and prior experience in front of the Senate Judiciary committee, will be considered to be extreme and unacceptable! Please understand, I have never been accused of being a pessimist. Quite the opposite is true - I have been accused of being an obnoxious optimist. However, we Republicans have set the next candidate up for failure. Period, end of discussion. Enjoy your victory now, all of you anti-Miers conservatives, because it is going to be short-lived. Regardless of who the next candidate is and no matter how qualified, the angry left is going to shoot them down. The only candidate that they will confirm will end up being to the LEFT of Justice O'Connor......

This man wants to be a Senator?????

Now I have no problems poking fun at one another. A friend of mine showed me a card the other day that had me howling....it was a take off of a poster of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" with President Bush photoshopped in. It was a clever piece of work.

Al Franken has a new book out. While that may not be newsworthy in and of itself, what Al is doing to promote the book that is. Michelle Malkin brings our attention to this little promotional gem (see high bandwidth and low bandwidth versions). Now as I said earlier, I have no problems poking fun at one another however there is nothing "fun" about staging an "attack" on someone who disagrees with you. Imagine, if you will, that Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or (God forbid) Ann Coulter had staged a fake attack on a liberal......Can you hear the howls of outrage from the left?

What ever happened to civil discourse? What ever happened to respectful discussion of the issues of the day? Does Mr. Franken really think that this kind of "discourse" will add to the "worlds greatest deliberative body"???? How does this promote the best interests of Minnesota or the United States????? I dearly hope and pray that our esteemed friends in the DFL reject this publicity stunt disguised as a run for office. We certainly deserve better than this....

Calling Senator Coleman

Earlier this week, the unthinkable happened. A sitting Senator (Senator Tom Coburn from Okalhoma) had the audacity to propose an amendment to a spending bill that called for certain "earmarked" dollars to be redirected from their assigned projects and sent to Louisiana and Alabama to help pay for the promised relief from Hurricane Katrina. Projects such as the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska and a sculpture garden in Washington state would loose their funding (this year anyway) in order to rebuild the Twin Spans in New Orleans and rebuilt infrastructure in Mississippi. Very sound, logical thinking to me, however, it did not appear that way to 82 of the Gentleman from Oklahoma's colleagues, including our soon to be senior Senator - Norm Coleman! Now I understand that Senator Coleman at one time was a Democrat, but he ran for his seat as a fiscal and social conservative and in this post 9/11 world, with multiple natural disasters and a war to pay for, what was he thinking voting against this?

I'll tell you what he was thinking - he (along with the 81 others who voted against the Coburn Amendment) was more concerned about "congressional courtesy" - the act of supporting another Senator's pet "pork" project so that some day in the future, (s)he supports yours in turn! While this kind of "thought" is great for sitting Senators and Congressmen (who can go home and brag about how much federal money they brought home) it is lousy for the American people that they are supposed to be looking out for!

Instead of being commended for making the "tough" proposals, Senator Coburn was vilified by his colleagues.

"I come to warn the Senate, if you want a wounded bull on the floor of the Senate, pass this amendment," a red-faced Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) snorted. "I stood here and watched Senator Allen teach the Senate lesson after lesson after something was done to Alabama that he didn't like. I don't threaten people; I promise people." That's right - a supposed "conservative" is threatening his fellow senators if they dare to vote against his pet pork project!

and

"If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to look for a culprit for the fiscal situation in this country, he should look into the billions and billions of dollars in tax cuts that have been granted to multimillionaires in this country, and he should look at additional tax cuts his party wants to implement in future years if he wants to find incredible savings," Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) lectured. That's right dear reader - rather than temporarily suspend pork spending, Senator Murray would rather rescind YOUR TAX CUTS!!!!! Then she threw out this threat..."What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next."

Meanwhile, Senator Coburn is concerned about projects, such as one in Rhode Island where $220,000 is going to toward a $2.2 million animal shelter when "...we are spending $200,000 for the construction of an animal shelter when we cannot even shelter the people properly in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi."

We need more Senators like Senator Coburn. It is time for ALL savage Republicans to stand up for fiscal sanity and restraint. Contact Senator Coburn and let him know that you appreciate his looking out for your hard earned dollars. Then put your sitting Senators on notice. Contact them and let them know that they need to do what is right for the country first. If it means putting a pet project back home on hold, so be it...

Senator Coleman - pay attention to what your base is saying! You will need our help in two very short years when you are up for re-election. Ignoring the disgruntled base will not get you sent back to DC in 2008......

The Savage Republican

Local Attractions

Favorite Links

Previous Posts

Archives

Friday, October 28, 2005

Disagreement among friends

Thursday, October 27, 2005

They will oppose anyone

Well I hope ya'll are happy!

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

This man wants to be a Senator?????

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Calling Senator Coleman